Repiping Didn't Benefit Commercial Tenants

LVT Number: #24049

The DRA granted landlord's MCI rent hike application based on repiping. Tenant appealed, claiming that a portion of the cost should be allocated to commercial tenants in the building. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord stated that the commercial tenants didn't benefit from the repiping work. Architectural plans submitted with the application also showed that the piping had been installed only in the residential portion of the building.

The DRA granted landlord's MCI rent hike application based on repiping. Tenant appealed, claiming that a portion of the cost should be allocated to commercial tenants in the building. The DHCR ruled against tenant. Landlord stated that the commercial tenants didn't benefit from the repiping work. Architectural plans submitted with the application also showed that the piping had been installed only in the residential portion of the building.

177 Chrystie Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. ZF430066RT (3/16/12) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

ZF430066RT.pdf81.49 KB